JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30.11.95 in Case No. 54 of 1993 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The said order has been passed on application preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Collector, Bhojpur, in Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1991-92 and the order of the DCLR. Arrah, in Ceiling Case No. 45 of 1984. By the impugned order the Board has remitted the matter to the authority below to see if any application under section 22(1) of the Act has been filed by the petitioner. If such application is found on the record of the case then it may be considered in accordance with law and the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna." The petitioner claims to be the Sikmidar (under raiyay) of lands comprising of C.S. Plot nos. 183, 184. 185, 186, 187, 188, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197 and 198 appertaining to C. S. Khata no. 4C, situate in village Nause for within Behea Anchal of Bhojpur district. There does not appear to be any dispute about the same. It appears from the records that the petitioner had earlier come to this Court again it the orders in CWJC No. 1074 of 1979. By judgment and order dated 6. 7. 83 this Court observed, "If the petitioners can show to the land ceiling authorities concerned that after revisional survey operation in the revenue record of the State the petitioners were shown as tenants or landholders of tile C.S. Plot numbers mentioned above, then the matter should be reconsidered and an order passed according to law after giving petitioners opportunity to be heart" According to the petitioner, in terms of the above said order and observation or this Court the authorities were duty bound to consider the claim of the petitioner as Sikmidar without his making an application as contemplated by section 22 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 This submission cannot be accepted in view of the express provisions of section 22(1) It may be mentioned that this Court also did not (and could not) dispense with the necessity of making application. The point for consideration is whether the claim of the petitioner as Sikmidar has to be summarily rejected merely because he did not submit application within the prescribed period of limitation. Counsel for the petitioner in this connection referred to the order of the DCLR dated 9/10.1991 in Ceiling Case No. 117/73-74, Petition Case No. 45 of 1984 and submitted that the petitioner has been held to be Sikmidar with respect to the land is question. Counsel for the State does not dispute this position. He however, as submitted that application having not been filed within the period of 90 days, the application cannot be entertained under section 22 of the Act. In the fact of the case, the submission of the counsel for the State cannot be accepted. There being no dispute about the status of the petitioner as Sikmidar, in view of the order and observation of this Court in the aforementioned writ petition the authorities should have called upon the petitioner to exercise his option for retaining his land as under-raiyat under section 22. If the petitioner bona fide believed that by reason of the observation and direction of this Court he is not required to make an application, and did not do so, his claim cannot be rejected only on that ground. In the above promises, I would dispose of this application with direction to the Collector under the Act to entertain the application filed by the petitioner, if filed within a period of one month from today for declaration of his sikmi right under section 22 and after verification, if required, pass final order in that regard in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.